THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The Christian Church has never attributed the Book of Acts to any other
writer than St. Luke. The external proofs of the primitive date of the
book are important, and point to the apostolic age as the date of its
composition. St. Clement of Rome, about A.D. 95, in referring to Ps.
lxxxviii. 20, quotes it in words which are almost certainly based on
Acts xiii. 22. There are two apparent quotations from Acts in the
letters of St. Ignatius and one in the letter of St. Polycarp. It is
also quoted in the works of Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras, and
in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons written in A.D. 177.
It was evidently read throughout the 2nd century, and it is definitely
assigned to St. Luke by Irenaeus, the _Muratorian Fragment_,
Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.
In opposition to this tradition, a persistent effort has been made to
prove that the book belongs to the early part of the and century.
There are certain passages in which the writer uses the _first person
plural_, implying that he was personally present on the occasions
described. The sections of the book in which that peculiarity is found
are ordinarily called the "we sections," and it has been asserted that
though the "we sections" are primitive they have been worked into the
narrative of a later writer.[1] Furthermore it is asserted that {103}
the book was deliberately intended to be a fictitious account of the
primitive Church, and that its special purpose was to balance the story
of St. Peter with that of St. Paul in such a manner as to completely
disguise the fundamental antagonism of the two apostles.
The force of this argument has been weakened by the general admission
of non-Christian writers that the differences of opinion between the
two apostles were grossly exaggerated by the critics of fifty years
ago. It is therefore granted that there was less necessity for the
forgery than there was said to be by the critics in question. It is
also very obvious that we cannot fairly charge a historian with
dishonesty because he wishes to balance one great character with
another. No one would assert that a modern writer was a partisan or a
liar because he devoted in the same book twenty appreciative pages to
the Evangelical Revival and twenty appreciative pages to the Oxford
Movement. In spite of this fact, the trustworthy character of the book
is still vigorously assailed. It is said that no statement in the book
deserves ready belief except the "we sections," that those sections
were written by an unknown companion of St. Paul, and impudently
"appropriated" by a Christian who wrote between A.D. 105 and A.D. 130.
This argument about the "we sections" can be completely overthrown by a
consideration of the _linguistic evidence_ of Acts. If language
implies anything, the peculiarities of Acts imply that the author of
the "we sections," who was a companion of St. Paul, was the author of
the whole book. And they also show that the author of the whole book
was the person who wrote the third Gospel. There are many words and
phrases found only in the "we sections" and in the rest of Acts. There
is, too, a large number of words and phrases in the "we sections" which
are rarely used in those books of the New Testament which are _not_
attributed to St. Luke, and occur frequently in the rest of Acts and in
St. Luke's Gospel. If {104} we compare Acts with St. Luke's Gospel, we
find that Acts contains 108 out of 140 which are characteristic of this
Gospel, whereas it contains only about a half of those which are
characteristic of Matt. and Mark. There are 58 Greek words which are
found in both Acts and Luke and nowhere else in the New Testament.[2]
Among the terms which serve as connecting links between St. Luke's
Gospel and Acts, including the "we sections," occur various medical
phrases. It is becoming more and more widely recognized that these
phrases imply that the writer was a physician, such as we know St. Luke
to have been (Col. iv. 14). It is all the more remarkable that many of
the words peculiar to Acts are found in St. Luke's contemporary, the
physician Dioscorides.
It is true that the sections taken from Mark show numerous "Lucan"
characteristics as they appear in our third Gospel, but these
characteristics are due to the third evangelist, and not to St. Mark.
So, it can be urged, the "Lucan" characteristics in the "we sections"
are due not to the author, but to an expert editor of a later time. In
reply, we can answer that the cases are not strictly parallel. For if
the "we sections" are not by the writer of Acts, he must have almost
entirely rewritten them, and, at the same time, have been guilty of a
gross fraud, which he stupidly dropped in passages where it could have
been effectively used.
To this linguistic evidence of authenticity we can add _archaeological
evidence_. The discoveries of the last thirty years have greatly
confirmed the accuracy of the writer in points where a writer of the
2nd century would have betrayed his ignorance. In fact, we are able to
compare his accuracy with the inaccuracy of the writing known as the
_Acts of Paul and Thecla_, a 2nd century blend of sensationalism and
piety based on a document of the 1st century. Now, in almost every
point where we are able to test the knowledge possessed by the author
of Acts with regard to the topography of Asia {105} Minor and the
details of Roman government, it can be pronounced correct. This has
been admirably shown by Prof. Ramsay's works on _The Church in the
Roman Empire and St. Paul_. St. Luke knows that Cyprus was governed by
a pro-consul, which had ceased to be the case early in the 2nd century;
that the magistrates at Philippi were called _strategoi_, and were
attended by lictors, while those at Thessalonica were called
_politarchai_ (xvii. 6), a title which has been verified by
inscriptions. He is aware that the governor of Malta was only called
the head-man (xxviii. 7). He knows that Derbe and Lystra, but not
Iconium, were cities of Lycaonia, and that "great Artemis" was the cry
used at Ephesus in invoking the patronal goddess of the city (xix. 28).
We must not assert that these and similar details absolutely prove that
the writer was a companion of St. Paul; but we can say that he was
peculiarly well acquainted with the life of that period. The account
of St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck is equally accurate.
A very favourite argument against the genuineness of Acts is that Acts
xv., in its account of St. Paul's third visit to Jerusalem, A.D. 49, is
inconsistent with Gal. ii. It is asserted that the author deliberately
falsified the story in order to represent the older apostles as
promoting the union of Gentile and Jewish Christians, some modern
critics assuming that the apostles would never have done anything so
Catholic. But there is no real discrepancy between the two accounts,
if we are ready to believe that St. Luke gives the public and exterior
view of the proceedings, while St. Paul, as is natural, describes the
personal aspect of those proceedings. According to Acts xv. 2, St.
Paul and St. Barnabas were _deputed_ to go to Jerusalem by the Church
at Antioch; according to Gal. ii. 2, St. Paul went there "by
revelation." The internal motive is surely compatible with the
external. Again, both Acts xv. and Gal. ii. show that the momentous
Council at Jerusalem included private and public meetings. The two
accounts fit one another all the better in consequence of the fact that
Acts {106} lays stress upon the public settlement (xv. 7 f.) and
Galatians upon a private conference (ii. 2). Acts shows that there was
much dispute, and Galatians shows that the dispute included opposition
to St. Paul's methods. Acts shows that St. Paul greatly desired to be
on good terms with the older apostles, Galatians shows that they gave
him the right hand of fellowship. The historical situation, the
occasion of dispute (viz. the attempt to impose circumcision on the
Gentiles), the chief persons concerned and the feelings which they
entertained, are the same in both books.[3]
As to the fact that St. Paul in Galatians makes no mention of a second
visit to Jerusalem about A.D. 46, he ignores it because it was devoted
to the specific business mentioned in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25. Nothing
arose out of it affecting his relations with the first apostles or his
own apostleship. A description of this visit was therefore quite
beside the argument of Galatians. We cannot therefore say that its
omission in Galatians proves that it was an invention of the author of
Acts.
The fact that Acts does not depend upon St. Paul's writings and
nevertheless shows many undesigned points of contact with them, leads
us to a very important conclusion. This conclusion is that the writer
of Acts was a companion of St. Paul. It is incredible that a later
writer, who took an eager interest in St. Paul's adventures, should
have made no use of St. Paul's letters. Those letters made a deep
impression upon St. Paul's contemporaries (cf. 2 Cor. x. 10), and they
were carefully treasured by all succeeding generations. We can only
explain the relation between Acts and the Pauline Epistles by the
theory that the author of Acts was sufficiently intimate with the
apostle to be able to write his book without feeling the necessity of
enriching it by references to those Epistles. The theory, then, fits
with the theory which is suggested to us by the "we sections." The
only remaining question is whether this companion was, or was not, St.
Luke. {107} He was evidently with St. Paul at Rome, and this makes it
impossible to attribute the authorship of Acts to Titus, as there is no
hint in the New Testament of Titus being there. Nor was the author
Silas, for Silas was not with St. Paul on the third missionary journey,
while the author of Acts was. Acts xx. 5, 6 seems to prove that the
book was not written by Timothy. No one seems so likely to have been
the author as St. Luke. For the writer of Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16
evidently accompanied St. Paul to Rome, and we learn from Col. iv. 14
and Philem. 24 that St. Luke was with the apostle during his first
imprisonment in that city. We may therefore say that every line of
evidence points to the truth of the ancient tradition that St. Luke
wrote Acts.
The sources of information employed by St. Luke can sometimes be
determined with a high degree of probability. Where he did not draw
upon his own recollections he could often rely upon those of St. Paul.
The apostle was, as we should expect, in the habit of narrating his own
experiences (cf. 2 Cor. i. 8-10; xii. 9; Gal. i. 11-ii. 14; Phil. iii.
3-7; Rom. xv. 16-32). Acts xxi. 19; xiv. 27; xv. 3, 12, 26, show how
St. Paul related his travels. Acts i.-v. probably incorporates an
early Jewish Christian document, and contains features which
unmistakably point to the truthfulness of the record. A good deal of
information was probably obtained from John Mark: it was to the house
of Mark's mother that St. Peter made his way after his escape from
prison recorded in ch. xii. As St. Mark was with St. Luke and St. Paul
at Rome, and acted as St. Peter's interpreter, St. Luke had the
opportunity of learning from him many facts concerning St. Peter. St.
Barnabas also perhaps furnished some details concerning the history of
the early Church at Jerusalem. Some of the converts who fled from
Judaea to Antioch (xi. 19) were probably men who witnessed the wonders
of the Day of Pentecost. And if St. Luke was a Christian of Antioch,
as tradition says, he may have made inquiries of these converts.
{108}
From Philip the evangelist, St. Luke may have learnt the history of
events with which Philip was concerned, as he stayed with him at
Caesarea (xxi. 8-12), and he also knew Mnason, who was one of the
"original" disciples of Pentecost (xxi. 16). Finally, we notice that
St. Luke had intercourse with St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem,
himself (xxi. 18).
[Sidenote: Date.]
We have seen above (p. 68) that St. Luke's Gospel was probably written
soon after A.D. 70. As Acts i. 1 shows that Acts was written later
than the Gospel, and as there is just enough difference in style
between the two books to encourage the idea that Acts was not written
immediately after the Gospel, we may reasonably place Acts between A.D.
75 and 80.
One obvious objection to placing the date of Acts so late is the fact
that the writer does not record the death of St. Paul. This is
certainly startling, for the martyrdom of the great apostle would have
formed an impressive conclusion to the book. But there are several
reasons which may be appropriately suggested to account for the
omission. Possibly the author intended to write a third "treatise," in
which the story of the martyrdom of his two great heroes, St. Peter and
St. Paul, would be recounted; possibly Acts, which ends very abruptly,
was never completed by the author. It is also possible that, after
showing that the Roman civil power had generally been tolerant towards
Christianity, he did not wish to endanger the circulation of his book
by giving an account of Nero's brutal persecution of the Christians.
If the book had contained any such history, the possession of it would
have been regarded as no small offence by the civil authorities.
Several years later, when the Church was probably much stronger, St.
John, in writing the Revelation, disguised his description of Nero in
symbolical language. In any case, St. Luke may have wished both to
show Theophilus that Christianity was compatible with loyalty to the
government, {109} and that the government had for a long time been
tolerant towards Christianity.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The general plan of the book may easily be seen by a glance at the
Analysis printed below. We may describe it by saying that the ruling
ideas are the progress and the continuity of the Church. That is to
say, St. Luke shows how the Church, the divinely organized society
which promotes the kingdom of God, lives and develops through various
stages and crises. It spreads from one upper room in Jerusalem to
Rome, the world's mightiest city. From the election of Matthias, the
new apostle, until the decision reached by the Council at Jerusalem
twenty years afterwards, and recorded in ch. xv., we behold a slow but
sure progress. The secret of this progress is dependence upon the
risen Christ. We cannot conceive how the apostles could ever have come
out of the perplexity and dismay caused by the death of their Lord, and
laboured with such enthusiasm, unless they were certain that the Lord
was indeed risen. Without the resurrection, the Church would have
collapsed at once. Knowing that it could not be possibly disproved,
the apostles appeal to it as their reason for advancing out of Judaism.
Two points with regard to the doctrine implied in chs. i.-xv. deserve
special attention.
(1) _The doctrine of Christ's Person_. The doctrine is of the simplest
kind, but the facts asserted by the apostles imply that He is divine.
He is the Messiah, anointed by God, and the Holy One, and He is in a
special sense the Holy Servant or Child of God (iii. 14; iv. 27). He
is seated at the right hand of God (v. 31), He is Prince and Saviour.
He fulfils divine functions. It is He who has poured out the Holy
Spirit (ii. 33). He is the object of man's faith, and His name or
revealed personality is declared to have just restored a lame man to
soundness (iii. 16); signs and wonders are expected to be done through
Him (iv. 30). There is "salvation" in none other (iv. 12), and He is
to be "the Judge of quick and dead" {110} (x. 42). St. Stephen in
dying prays to Him. He is perpetually called Lord, and the fact that
the same name is applied to Jehovah in the Septuagint makes it
impossible to suppose that Christ is not regarded as possessed of
divine attributes.
(2) _The doctrine of the salvation of the world_. Rationalist critics
have asserted that the first apostles had no idea that the gospel was
meant for the world, and that they limited its light to the children of
Abraham. The unfairness of this assertion is shown by the consistent
manner in which the same doctrine of the salvation of all men is
interwoven in different parts of Acts, including the early chapters,
which are generally acknowledged to be derived from an early Jewish
Christian source. The doctrine is that salvation is offered to the
Jews first (iii. 26), but "all that are afar off" may share in it (ii.
39; iii. 25). This is exactly the doctrine expressed by St. Paul in
Rom. i. 16. And the conversion of Gentiles of different classes, as
recorded in Acts, testifies that the apostles acted up to the doctrine.
They did not doubt that the Gentiles had a right to the gospel. The
point which did agitate them was, how much of the Jewish ceremonial
ought the Gentiles to be required to observe. When the Gentile
converts became numerous the question became acute, being sharpened by
the demand of certain Jewish Christians that all converts should be
circumcised.
St. Peter and St. James set their faces against this demand, and it was
determined on their advice that the Gentiles should only be required to
abstain from "meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication" (xv. 29). The rule was primarily
meant for Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. It prohibits complicity in
idolatry, and in the immorality with which Syrian idolatry had been
historically associated. And it prohibits the eating of blood and
things strangled, a practice which might cause friction in the presence
of Jewish communities. Nothing is said about circumcision or the
sabbath. It is impossible to reconcile Acts xv. with the {111} theory
that the original apostles were merely Jewish Unitarians who detested
St. Paul. And the Rationalists who have propagated this theory gain no
help either from Galatians or from Acts xxi. For St. Paul, in writing
to the Galatians, asserts the two central facts which we find in Acts
xv., viz. (i.) that his policy of an open gospel was opposed by a party
which appealed to the original apostles, (ii.) that the original
apostles gave him the hand of fellowship and repudiated the Judaizers.
In Acts xxi. 24 we find St. Paul himself performing a Jewish ceremonial
act at the request of St. James. The request was made in order to
counteract the falsehood that he had been trying to make the Hebrew
converts desert the old Jewish customs. It cannot be interpreted as a
proof of the supposed blind Judaism of St. James. For St. Paul
_voluntarily_ performed a similar act at Cenchreae, and we have no
ground for believing that he always claimed for himself that entire
freedom from Jewish usages which he always claimed for his Gentile
converts. His own words contradict such a notion emphatically (1 Cor.
ix. 20).
The truth is that it is only by doing violence to all the evidence
which we possess, that anything can be done to support either the
theory of Baur and his school that the apostles of the Church were
divided with regard to the _Law_, or the more recent theory of Harnack
and others that they were divided with regard to the _Person of
Christ_. All the apostles believed that the gospel was for all men on
equal terms, and that Christ was the divine Lord of all.
In addition to these points, it is necessary to say a few words about
_the ministry of the Church_ which is described in Acts. It is
asserted by such writers as Martineau, Sabatier, and Schmiedel, that
the state of the Church and the ministry in Acts betrays the fact that
the author did not write in the apostolic age. It is said that
"hierarchical ideas" or "hierarchical pretensions" can be detected in
such passages as i. 17, 20; viii. 14-17; xv. 28; xx. 28, and that such
ideas {112} could not have been entertained by the apostles. It is not
possible to give a full discussion of such a theory in this book.[4]
We must be content with noting that, in order to give it any appearance
of validity, it is necessary to reject every part of the New Testament
which does not happen to agree with it. Schmiedel, who places Acts
between A.D. 110 and 130, says that "Acts xx. 18-35 has many ideas in
common with those of the Pastoral Epistles," but that "the author has
not yet reached the stage in the development of Church government which
characterizes the First Epistle to Timothy." [5] He says this simply
because that Epistle, which he regards as a late forgery, shows a form
of Church government practically identical with Episcopacy, while he
thinks that Acts xx. shows a form of government intermediate between
the genuine apostolic form and Episcopacy. To this we may make two
answers; (a) that the Church government in Acts and 1 Timothy is
practically the same, the work of the apostle being in r Timothy partly
delegated to an apostolic vicar; (b) as there is excellent evidence for
regarding 1 Timothy as a genuine writing of St. Paul, it gives us an
additional cause for believing that the description of Church
government in Acts is not fictitious.
ANALYSIS
The outline of the book is laid down in the words of our Lord quoted in
i. 8, "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon
you: and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea,
and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth."
{113}
A.
From A.D. 29 to ? 34,
The Church at Jerusalem: i.-viii. 1.--Introduction; the commission to
the apostles, the Ascension, choice of Matthias in place of Judas (i.).
Outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter's speech, the unity
of the Church (ii.). Cure of a lame man, Peter's speech on the
occasion (iii.). Peter and John imprisoned and before the Council,
their dismissal and return to the Church, community of goods in the
Church (iv.). Ananias and Sapphira, miracles of healing, especially by
Peter, second imprisonment of Peter and John, Peter's speech,
Gamaliel's advice to refrain from persecution (v.). Appointment of the
seven deacons, Stephen's ministry and arrest (vi.). Stephen's defence,
in which he shows that the Jews have always opposed the chief servants
of God and that _true worship is independent of the Jewish temple_,
Stephen's martyrdom (vii.-viii. 1).
B.
From A.D. ? 34 to 46.
Christianity spreads through Judaea and Samaria and to the Gentiles,
St. Paul's conversion: viii.-xii.--Church scattered by persecution,
Philip in Samaria, Simon Magus, Peter and John at Samaria, Philip
baptizes an Ethiopian proselyte to Judaism (viii.). Conversion of
Paul, his baptism, he is introduced to the apostles, Peter at Joppa and
Lydda, raising of Tabitha by Peter (ix.). Peter and Cornelius, Peter's
trance, he eats with and has baptized _Gentiles_ who had previously
believed in God but were _uncircumcised_ (x.). He explains his conduct
and the Church approves (xi. 1-18).
Christianity spreads to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, where it is
preached to _pagan Greeks_ (xi. 19-30). Herod's {114} persecution,
murder of James, Peter's third imprisonment and escape, death of Herod
in A.D. 44, Paul returns from his second visit to Jerusalem (xii.).
C.
From A.D. 47 to 49.
St. Paul's First Missionary Journey: xiii. 1-xv. 35.--Barnabas and Paul
receive the laying on of hands at Antioch, journey through Cyprus,
Elymas the sorcerer blinded, visit to Antioch in Pisidia, Paul's speech
in the synagogue, he turns to the Gentiles (xiii.). Paul preaches at
Iconium, cures lame man at Lystra, is stoned, returns to Antioch
(xiv.). _Persecution of the Christians by Jews_.
The Jerusalem Church Council decides that _Gentiles need not be
circumcised_ (xv. 1-35).
D.
From A.D. 49 to 52.
St. Paul's Second Missionary Journey: xv. 36-xviii. 22.--Paul with
Silas visits the Churches founded during the first journey, Timothy
circumcised (xv. 36-xvi. 5). Paul crosses to Europe, imprisoned at
Philippi, conversion of the jailor (xvi.). At Thessalonica and Beroea,
at Athens, Paul's speech at the Areopagus (xvii.). At Corinth, brought
before Gallic the Roman proconsul, travels by Ephesus and Caesarea to
Jerusalem and Antioch (xviii. 1-22). _Persecution by Jews, or by
Gentiles whose pockets are affected_ (xvi. 19).
E.
From A.D. 52 to 56.
St. Paul's Third Missionary Journey: xviii. 23-xxi. 16.--Paul revisits
Galatia and Phrygia; Apollos, a converted {115} Jew, defends
Christianity at Corinth (xviii. 23-28). Paul stays at Ephesus, great
riot (xix.). _Roman officials tolerant to Christianity, craftsmen
whose pockets are affected show violence_. Journey to Macedonia and
Greece, Paul at Troas, Eutychus' fall and cure, journey to Miletus
where Paul meets the presbyters of Ephesus (xx.). Voyage to Tyre and
Caesarea (xxi. 1-16).
F.
From A.D. 56 to 61.
St. Paul arrested at Jerusalem, imprisoned at Caesarea, voyage to Rome:
xxi. 17-xxviii. 31.--Paul visits James and the presbyters, the Jews try
to kill him, he is rescued and taken to the castle (xxi. 17-40). His
speech to the Jews, is removed by the chief captain (xxii.). His
speech before the Jewish Council, is taken to Caesarea (xxiii.).
Appears before the procurator Felix (xxiv.). Appears before the
procurator Festus, appeals to the emperor, speaks before Agrippa (xxv.,
xxvi.). _Roman officials still tolerant, but obliged to interfere_.
The voyage and shipwreck (xxvii.). Paul at Melita (xxviii. 1-10). He
journeys to Rome and expounds the gospel at Rome, where the Jews had
not previously heard anything against him. He preaches the kingdom of
God for two years (xxviii. 11-31).
Similar Characteristics of St. Luke's Gospel and Acts.--Among such are
the continued interest in Samaritans (Acts i. 8; viii. 5-25) John the
Baptist (Acts i. 22; x. 37; xiii. 24; xviii. 25; xix. 3), women (Acts
i. 14; ix. 36; xii. 12; xvii. 4), the poor (Acts ii. 45; iii. 3; iv.
32; ix. 39, etc.). In both books Christ is specially called "Lord,"
and is the great Prophet (Luke vii. 16, 39; xxiv. 19-27; cf. Acts iii.
22; vii. 37), also the suffering "Servant" (Luke xxiv. 36, 45; cf. Acts
iii. 13, 18; iv. 27; viii. 32). Notice, too, in both books the long
reports of prayers and speeches.
[1] The "we sections" contain 97 verses. They are xvi. 10-17, xx.
5-15; xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16.
[2] See Rev. Sir John C. Hawkins, Bart., M.A., _Horae Synopticae_.
[3] See Lightfoot, _Commentary on Galatians_.
[4] The reader is referred to Dr. Gore, _The Church and the Ministry_,
p. 234 f. (fourth edition).
[5] _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, vol. i. p. 49.
{116}